Reflections of Science, Human Sexuality and Public Policy

Updated on August 30, 2011

In academic circles, we are presented with scientific evidence proposing that same-sex couples rear children who grow up to be well-adjusted adults, demonstrating that same-sex couples are just as competent at child raising as heterosexual couples are. This evidence is often used to argue how these families are at a disadvantage as they do not receive legal recognition. Other academics argue that in light of scientific evidence such these that dispel many of the myths we have about sexual minorities, there is good reason why same-sex couples should be granted more if not equal legal status as their heterosexual counterparts.

In this hub, I look at the role of science and how it shapes affects not only our policies regarding sexuality, and the further impact of these policies. I propose that most often, scientific evidence is used to build a case, and support policies which will ultimately steer a country toward economic prosperity.

Source

Another Hub About Human Sexuality and Public Policy

Thoughts from a Human Sexuality ClassTaking a human sexuality class can be a most enlightening, interesting and extremely thought provoking. In this hub, I reflect on some of the concepts that dealt with in the human sexuality class I took.

Science provides us with a tremendous amount of insight and
revelation into what was previously concealed from our knowledge. In modern
society, we have great respect for doctors and the scientific community, as we
believe they bring hope and promise to our society. Although some people blame
scientific advancement for many of today's social ills, we cannot deny how
science has definitely helped to modernize our lives. It is a pity that some of
the scientific inventions that were purely intended for good, like gunpowder,
turned out to become such a deadly weapon.

In society today, much of our research is highly influenced
by the availability of funding. Often these funds are backed by sources with
political connections; having these political agendas attached to them which
make scientific research less objective than it ought to be. In many countries
outside the US, and in places that are more conservative, many doctors are
weary of prescribing birth control (especially to teenagers) as they know that
the pharmaceutical industry is a multibillion dollar business with profit
making motives. Sometimes, there may be insufficient testing of drugs which can
result in long-term consequences we are yet unaware of. I think behind this
stance, many countries that are still conservative also have more traditional
family values, so premarital sex is frowned upon and so is homosexuality,
especially because of the promiscuous stigma of the gay lifestyle. Although the
links may not be very direct, I think that the less forthcoming stance with
doctors and birth control does reflect much of our political concerns. On many
of the medical boards, we also have political figures sitting on the
directorship, which influence how much of the ideas about contraception are
aligned with the political concerns and the ideology of the nuclear family
being that of heterosexual and monogamous couples.

When I think of these countries’ same-sex marriage, I think
that it will take a long time for the government to legalize it, as the family
is seen as a basic unit of society. In this family, the nuclear family with
heterosexual parents is deemed as the ideal as the family is self-containing,
and parents are functional. A homosexual couple cannot conceive their own
children naturally nor can they subscribe to the traditional gender roles and
values that the country upholds. Homosexuality, though much more tolerated
nowadays than before is still regarded as deviant and even criminal behavior by
some. Although there is a genuine social and moral concern attached to this
issue, there are also the unspoken costs that are attached to it. The amount of
welfare, subsidy and taxpayer’s contribution that the government would have to
provide for these families and the lifestyle that they maintain costs the
government money.

Turning our attention back to science and how it is used to
justify much of the societal changes that we are experiencing, I think that it
is always useful to take results from scientific studies with a pinch of salt,
as statistics are easily manipulated to gather results that one might be
seeking. In today’s culture, we rely heavily on scientific proof and
calculability as a source of information. One danger of this is that if we let
scientific findings inform our social policy blindly, we will soon lose the
human element in our daily living. This is especially so for controversial
issues such as same sex marriage where we must be discerning regarding
scientific studies that may report results that are misaligned with our values
and beliefs, and intuition. Very often, while scientific results can be used to
reduce stigma for what may have once been taboo and socially disdained, science
can also be used a powerful tool used by a powerful and vocal minority to
enforce their beliefs and values onto the rest of society.

More by this Author

A sociology essay that addresses how Robert Merton's Strain Theory fits into the functionalist theory. Thereafter, I critique Strain Theory from the angle of other classic sociological perspectives, such as conflict,...

Taking a human sexuality class can be a most enlightening, interesting and extremely thought provoking. In this hub, I reflect on some of the concepts that dealt with in the human sexuality class I took.

1 comment

Science will completely bulldoze homosexuality anyway. The genetic revolution will mean an exponential increase in the speed of gene-mapping, with amazing increases in speed and capacities much like the computer revolution already did for computers. The Human Genome Project took years to sequence ONE human, and even then they cheated by putting all the races in the same blender and ignoring the fuzzy, undeterminable patches.

But with increased speed you will do all humans, all sorts of humans. Our children or grandchildren will read the gene-sequences with its A's, C'g, G's, and T's the way we read computer-code. They will understand what proteins result, where the junk DNA sequences are -- and they will see quite clearly the physical differences between homosexuals and non-homosexuals, which will show up as defects. By then, "hippie thinking" will have been retired and buried for many decades, so they will not have preconceptions that it's normal or anything, they will let the genes speak. And then, what do you think will happen? A simple nanomachine will replace the defective sequences and quite simply, no one will ever be born gay again. Any activism for gays will be seen in the same light as trying to subsidize the buggy-whip industry to keep it going.